The BRICS alliance—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—is often portrayed as a counterbalance to Western hegemony in the global political economy. Its growing attention in media and policy discussions has led some to speculate on its potential as an alternative global power center. However, a thorough and realistic analysis reveals that BRICS lacks the unity, economic muscle, institutional strength, and geopolitical coherence to rival the entrenched structures of Western power. Instead, BRICS functions more as a symbolic coalition than a potent actor in global governance.
1. Internal Divisions and Strategic Misalignments
The member states of BRICS are vastly different in their political systems, strategic goals, and economic models, resulting in fundamental internal divisions:
- China and India, the two largest economies in the bloc, are also geopolitical adversaries, with ongoing border disputes and competing ambitions in Asia.
- Russia’s focus on energy exports and military influence often conflicts with India’s and Brazil’s aspirations for diversified economic growth and broader diplomatic credibility.
- South Africa, the smallest member, struggles to exert meaningful influence within the group.
These divergences make BRICS a loosely connected group rather than a coherent bloc. Unlike the European Union or the G7, BRICS lacks a unified agenda, rendering decisive collective action nearly impossible.
2. Overstated Economic Weight
The aggregate GDP of BRICS is often cited as a sign of its growing importance. However, the bulk of that economic weight is concentrated in China. In 2024:
- China’s nominal GDP stood at approximately $18 trillion.
- India’s GDP was about $3.9 trillion, despite having a population similar to China’s.
- Russia’s GDP was $2.1 trillion, Brazil’s $2.2 trillion, and South Africa’s just $0.4 trillion.
In total, the BRICS countries’ combined GDP is less than half of the U.S.’s $27 trillion. For perspective, Australia—a mid-sized Western economy with a population of just 26 million—had a nominal GDP of around $1.8 trillion in 2024. That’s comparable to Russia’s economy, which serves over 140 million people, and roughly half of India’s, which supports more than 1.4 billion. The figures expose the stark imbalance and limitations of economic parity within BRICS. Beyond China, the bloc’s economic output is modest, limiting its global influence.
3. Dependency on Western Markets and Institutions
Another critical weakness is BRICS’ dependence on Western economies.
- China’s economic rise has been fueled by access to U.S. and European markets.
- Russia’s economy remains almost entirely reliant on energy exports, making it highly susceptible to price swings and Western sanctions.
- Other members similarly depend on global capital markets, trade arrangements, and technologies dominated by Western institutions.
Meanwhile, the G7 economies—despite their internal challenges—remain more integrated and far wealthier, with a combined GDP of over $50 trillion. It is misguided to suggest BRICS can structurally challenge the Western order when its own growth is so deeply tied to it.
4. Weak Institutional Infrastructure
Unlike the G7, NATO, or ASEAN, BRICS lacks strong institutional mechanisms. The New Development Bank (NDB), BRICS’ flagship initiative, has a subscribed capital base of $100 billion—far below the World Bank’s $300 billion and the IMF’s $1 trillion lending capacity. Moreover, the NDB suffers from bureaucratic inertia and member disagreements over funding priorities.
BRICS also lacks a formal treaty, collective defense pact, or binding commitments. Summits often result in vague communiqués rather than actionable policies. Even ASEAN, while not a political bloc, demonstrates far greater coordination in trade and economic integration, often through mechanisms like ASEAN+3 and RCEP. BRICS, by contrast, resembles a fledgling platform issuing lofty but toothless declarations.
5. Domestic Constraints and External Vulnerabilities
Each BRICS member faces serious domestic and external limitations that hinder its global leadership:
- Russia is under severe economic strain due to sanctions and its costly war in Ukraine.
- Brazil and South Africa are hampered by political instability, corruption, and economic stagnation.
- India, though growing, is constrained by infrastructure deficits, inequality, and developmental demands.
- China is grappling with a persistent real estate crisis, demographic decline, and intensifying trade tensions with the West.
These constraints force BRICS countries to focus inward, leaving little capacity for coordinated global action.
6. Unrealistic Aspirations of Counter-Hegemony
Despite rhetoric about creating a new global order, BRICS is deeply embedded in the Western-dominated system. Its members:
- Rely heavily on the US dollar for international trade.
- Use SWIFT for cross-border financial transactions.
- Remain dependent on Western technologies and intellectual property.
Alternatives like China’s CIPS and attempts at “de-dollarization” have seen limited adoption. Intra-BRICS trade in local currencies remains under 10% of total trade volume. Official BRICS statements barely mention concrete alternatives to Western systems, underlining the symbolic—rather than structural—nature of its counter-hegemonic ambitions.
Conclusion: Symbolism Over Substance
The idea that BRICS constitutes a powerful bloc capable of reshaping the global order is largely an illusion. It lacks unity, economic parity, institutional infrastructure, and strategic coherence. While China alone may exert global influence, the broader grouping is more a diplomatic gathering than a geopolitical or economic force.
Without meaningful reforms, formal integration mechanisms, and convergence of national interests—none of which appear imminent—BRICS will remain a peripheral actor. It is best understood not as a counterweight to Western power but as a fragmented forum for emerging economies to air grievances without much collective follow-through. To believe otherwise is not just optimistic—it is delusional.
